Clark v. Midfast Bank ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TORRANCE CLARK CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 24-335 MIDFIRST BANK ET AL. SECTION “R” (5) ORDER Plaintiff Torrance Clark, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Midfirst Bank, Midland Mortgage, Wells Fargo, and Citi Group Insurance.1 In his § 1983 form complaint, Clark indicates that Midfirst filed a lawsuit against him in 2012, which is pending in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court for Jefferson Parish.2 The relief Clark seeks through this § 1983 action is to remove the state court action from the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court and “reinstate it back” in this Court.3 On February 23, 2024, Chief Magistrate Judge Michael North issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that Clark’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice 1 R. Doc. 1. 2 Id. at 1-2. 3 Id. at 5. as legally frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.4 Clark did not object to the R&R. Therefore, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts Chief Magistrate Judge North’s R&R as its opinion. Clark’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _12th day of March, 2024. Arak Vane2 SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE RDo.4